I think that's right, yeah.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Thomas > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sure. An interesting, if not terribly relevant, fact is that there are >> more irrational numbers that we *can't* represent the above way than that >> we can (IIRC). >> > > I think that kinda follows from diagonalization... it does handle more > cases than only using rationals, but pretty much by the Cantor diagonal > argument there's an infinite (indeed uncountably) number of reals that > cannot be captured by any such trick. > > -- > brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine > associates > [email protected] > [email protected] > unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad > http://sinenomine.net >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
